well well well

I've been working on everything but my draft.

But, it's okay, because i've finished writing study notes for my three biggest topics, I'm half way through extension notes and half way through art notes.

I'll be posting a (hopefully) finished, dodgey, awful and horrible essay for you all to help me improve. Excellent.

So i wrote some more

and I feel it makes very little sense but who cares!

Enjoy reading!

As historians, the simple desire of an ‘inquiry’ into the past has always been a driving force behind the recording and presentation of history. This presentation of the past however, has been refashioned over generations and influenced highly by predeceasing historians, the historian’s personal context and the complex cultural and sociological impact placed upon the historian.

Acknowledging this, one must ask if in our rapidly developed, technological society, can film be seen as a valid way of presenting the past? In order to answer this question a series of smaller questions must be taken into consideration, regarding accuracy of the history being told, audience perception, motivation behind the creation of the movie, the influence of context, and of course why film should or should not be seen as a valid way of preserving the past.

Why is any of this of importance? It is in my opinion the relationship between history and film should be of concern to those who hold the preservation of history n their best interest, due to the fact that film is, one of the most accessible media that a majority of people have. If you consider the power film as to persuade, argue, expose and vilify, you can imagine the impact of presenting history in a manner that, when placed in a mostly realistic visual and oral way, audiences will be under the power of the sensationalist views of Hollywood totalitarianism grasp.

If we think about the film industry, we are considering a multi-billion dollar corporate machine, functioning purely on the use of film as a profitable endeavor. Its motive of profit is achieved through creating an entertaining outlet for the consumer audience to buy into. One can argue despite historical themes and ideas within, a film is just trying entertain an audience rather than convey the most accurate truth of history possible. A prime example of a film based on history is the move 300, directed by Zack Snyder. The film, based upon a graphic novel, is the retelling of the Spartan-Persian battle at Thermopylae 486 AD. As Herodotus tells us about the event, [insert Herodotus quote]
The history’s written by ancient writers such as Herodotus can be arduous to read, often confusing, fragmented and long-winded. Not quite average reading material for the general public, is it? However, when film comes into play, creative license allows for the story to become more fanciful, with all the elements most appealing to a modern audience such as bravery, gore, a highly emotional plot and of course, the small elements of romance, making the film even more tragic than before. This film even goes further, of course, including ogres-esque creatures, clawed beasts and portrays the Ephors as half human monsters who take care of a young, convulsing oracle.


[there will be more essay here and I’ll probably finish and conclude after this paragraph]

One important aspect of film as a historical source is how we perceive the films value. Do we take into consideration the traditional view of films being created solely for entertainment purposes, or do we approach this study with the idea of films holding mostly truths with a few inaccuracies. Furthermore, do we just assume films are mostly fictions with a few granules of factual information or do we simply trust in the statement that films are nothing more than a story based on historical events? In order to assess the value of
Cinematic productions as valid historical sources we must take into consideration the different ways we can approach these texts.

Introduction

I know it's short but it's a start! I'm currently answering my first question about perspective.

You know,
Perspective
- Film is entertainment so it doesn’t matter if its right or wrong
- Film can have grains of truth but is mostly wrong
- Films can be quite accurate with a few mistakes.
- Films aren’t records of history- they’re just based on history

Anywho, here we go!




As historians, the simple desire of an ‘inquiry’ into the past has always been a driving force behind the recording and presentation of history. This presentation of the past however, has been refashioned over generations and influenced highly by predeceasing historians, the historian’s personal context and the complex cultural and sociological impact placed upon the historian.

Acknowledging this, one must ask if in our rapidly developed, technological society, can film be seen as a valid historical source? In order to answer this question a series of smaller questions must be taken into consideration, regarding accuracy of the history being told, audience perception and motivation behind the creation of the movie.

Before addressing these issues however, one important aspect of film as a historical source is how we perceive the films value. Do we take into consideration the traditional view of films being created solely for entertainment purposes, or do we approach this study with the idea of films holding mostly truths with a few inaccuracies. Furthermore, do we just assume films are mostly fictions with a few granules of factual information or do we simply trust in the statement that films are nothing more than a story based on historical events? In order to assess the value of
Cinematic productions as valid historical sources we must take into consideration the different ways we can approach these texts.



NOTE: With this last paragraph, those ideas of how to perceive history are derived from a text I'm using (Lessons from the Reel Life: Movies, Meaning and Myth-Making by Michael Frost and Robert Banks) and I'm not sure how I should go about referencing this, as I haven't directly quoted anything, i've just derived these questions from the discussions in the book about how to approach studying film.

Do I reference the pages that I got the ideas from? Or do I just reference the start of the chapter about historical films?

I referenced it like this: Michael Frost and Robert Banks, "Personal History- Life is Beautiful and the Interplay between Memory and Fable", Lessons from Reel Life: Movies, Meaning and Myth-Making (April 2001): pp 159-165

The pages span so largely because even though the chapter later on focuses solely on Life is Beautiful, for the first six pages it just discusses generally how we can perceive history and therefor what judgements will be made.

So today the tiny librarian lady gave me these three books

and they were called called

1) Lessons from Reel Life: Movies, Meaning and Myth-Making by Michael Frost and Robert Banks
2) Flicks: Studying Film as a Text by Dinah Partridge and Peter Hughes
3) An Introduction to Film Studies: Second Edition (edited by Jill Neimes)



...I wanted to cry after reading the chapters relevant to my new question. Why? Because these books are my holy grail.

Heres some stuff I wrote down today after sifting through these books :



Should movies be considered valid historical sources?

Perspective
- Film is entertainment so it doesn’t matter if its right or wrong
- Film can have grains of truth but is mostly wrong
- Films can be quite accurate with a few mistakes.
- Films aren’t records of history- they’re just based on history

Distortion of events
- Cinematic techniques and creative licence
- Accidental distortion- the watch incident in ben hurr durr a derp derpity derp.
- The confusion of eras
- Applying modern standards upon the past
- Director, actor and audience reception of the actual event.
- Historical fictions → Stories based in the past that never happened.

Motivation behind movies
- Money
- Fame
- Awards / acclamation
- Entertainment
- To tell a story???
-

Accuracy/ Inaccuracy
- Does it matter? (discuss if it matters within history anyway- post modern support, YEAH !)
- Films are designed primarily to be entertaining, so should this detract from inaccuracy?
- The idea of history as a story is raised once more as films closely relate to history’s written by Thucydides and Taticus
- The idea that history within films may not be 100 % factual, but they can capture the spirit of the time and moment.
- “Don’t let the truth get in the way of a true story”
- Address the idea that film isn’t mean to be factual and it doesn’t claim to be factual.
→ historical fiction?
- There is so such thing as bare facts in history anyway- historians pick and choose and so do films.

List of films to use as examples

• Ben Hur
• 300
• Gladiator
• Frost v Nixon
• Robin Hood
• Saving Private Ryan
• Black Hawk Down (?)
• Coco (the history of Coco Chanel)
• That Johnny Depp movie about John Dillinger
• Sophie’s choice (Almost like an annalist view of history)

Starting work this weekend!!

As you may or may not recall, a few posts ago I set myself my question (Evaluate Frost/Nixon's value as a historical source) and I provided myself with six different debates I will discuss within my essay. I've decided the most productive way to go about writing this essay is to answer and discuss the questions, then put them in essay formatting once I'm finished. This will also allow me to gather evidence to support my argument in question.

So after leafing through my questions I think the most sensible two to start with are
Why should/shouldn't films be seen as appropriate historical sources to study?

and

Is it important if films get it right?


With these two questions following my introduction, I'll have the chance to non-specifically discuss film and they're treatment of history, and begin to incorporate Frost/Nixon as my main example. I have been considering, however, discussing this topic more broadly and using a variety of historical films and their inconsistencies rather than just the one. I'm not sure about this though.

I'll be missing extension history on Thursday

Sorry about that, I was hit by a bus.
I will however, be watching frost / nixon tirelessly until my return on monday :)

>.>

Working full time. My brain kind of shat itself for lack of a better word.
Starting study notes today, I'll get back to posting my progress with the movie once the show is over. Hope everyone had a good easter and is making better progress than I.

:)